Re: a letter

Steve Coya <scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Fri, 22 March 1996 18:34 UTC

To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
cc: iesg@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: a letter
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Mar 96 10:02:26 PST." <v02140b44ad789316e267@[171.69.128.114]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:32:24 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Steve Coya <scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Message-ID: <9603221333.aa21355@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

>> How come the PPP WG needed a variance before the IESG could even
>> think about CCP, but we have mobility is in last call with a patent
>> claim pending? What am I missing here?

Not a thing. These are essentially the same issue. We're in a race
with Mobileip and RFC1602bis.

The one POSSIBLE difference is that the author of CCP acknowledged that
sections of his spec did infringe upon the Motorola patent claims. The
letter to Matsushita/Panasonic is an attempt for the patent holder to
identify which sections of the proposed protocol(s) are being infringed
upon.


Steve

Re: a letter Steve Coya
Re: a letter Fred Baker
Re: a letter Steve Coya
Re: a letter Joel Halpern
Re: a letter Fred Baker
Re: a letter Steve Coya
Re: a letter Scott Bradner